Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-03-20
anrnrnnr Lees nessasc.

After reciting that IN the written
opinion Of the best men on the bench
of the Supreme Court OF the United
States the State of Virginia had been
stripped Of her sovereignty by the
usurping decree OF five out of nine
Judges. the Governor adds as follows:
Yct n has tho binding effec, aud force Of a
decision unanimously concurred IN by a fuu
court. and ty the Constitution IL y the supreme
law of the land: and, n necessary, must be
furrorted ty the President wan Tho strong
lbnd a Federnl power. Nor 10 SEQ how the
rrohiIition ~ the Federal COnAtliutlc1-that
no gate shall pass ans law impsiring mo OD-
nfetlon Of Contrhci-cap lie cVadod ~ en-
rinftipe n multiplying provision upon the Con-
sfituficn az fne state. The prohibition Ia upon
the state without regard TO the form liza laws
NAY take or the agencies whicb cnact them.
The obligation Of q contract eau no moro be
irnroircd Inv tho Constitution OF a State than
by au oct Of It's IL gislature. Indeed. the point
has been settled by the Supreme Court Of the
United. States moro than once-he very ian-
guace In one Of It's decisions being mat ut Is
We'll settled by the adjudications Of this court
that a state can no moro impair the obligation
Of a contract by adopting Constitution tnan
by passing law; In the eye OF the consutu-
iiona inhibition they ara SUBSTANTIALLY the
same thing"
venture to differ with the Governor,
and think the above utterance contains
two mistakes-one of history and one
of law. | think it has been clearly
proven. and is generally admitted, that
il was never intended by the trainers OF
the Constitution that the phrase "No
State shall x pass = any law
impairing the obligation of contracts >
should apply to contracts made by a
State, and that the Interpretation which
gives it such right is usurpation by the
Supreme Court. The eleventh amend
ment says the judicial power shall not
embrace and was never meant to en-
brace any suit against State, and MIR.
Justice Mathews himself said in Antoni
rs. Greenhow "For breach of its
contract by State no remedy is pro.
yided by the Constitution of the United
States against the State itself, and suit
to compel the officers of the State to do
the acts which constitute the perform
ance Of its contracts by the State Is a
suit against the State itself.
In or about 1910 the States OF Mis-
sissippi and Pennsylvania repudiated
their debts and no suit was ever at
tempted against them. Since then
Minnesota and the eleven southern
States, including Virginia, have re-
duced their debts TO what seemed
proper to them, and in only three of
them has any attempt been made to
force them to settlement-to wit a: in
Louisiana. Tennessee, and Virginia.
In two of these the failure has been com
plete, and in Virginia the litigation still
continues as to a part only-to wit,
tax-receivable coupons {; and that fight
hinges upon narrow technicality which
the more respectable portion OF the
court spoke of as a bubble, while they
declare that "eyen if q State should
pass a law impairing the validity of its
own contract, no redress can be had
for the impairment OF its contracts IN
the Federal courts" Neither" says
Chiet-Justice Waite in another case,
"vas there when the bonds were
issued, nor is there now, any statute or
judicial decision giving the bOndhold-
or a remedy in the State courts or
elsewhere, either 10y mandamus or in
junction, against the State in its politl-
cal capacity, to compel it to do what it
has agreed should be done, but what It
refuses to do"
The Governors suggestion that every
man shall be sued who offers to pay his
taxes in coupons under form OF action
which cannot be INSTRUCTED by a Fede-
raj court is, by the logic Of his admis-
sion, nothing but an evasion OF the
reconstruction" which, he says, is "the
supreme law of the land" For if the
man who tenders his coupons for taxes
has constitutional compact right to
claim that the tender is payment, and
to claim the protection of the United
States, Why then the contrayening law
of Virginia must be a usurpation OF au-
thority which must be put down b. the
President with the strong hand Of
Federal power"
But the people know that the Consti-
tuition confers no such power, and they
are fighting the courts which pretend
they have by what they regard as
perfectly lawful and constitutional
methods. And they know that they
are not repudiating debt, but simply
insisting the enforcement OF claim
fIaudulently imposed. ***